Curt Sampson (cjs@cynic.net)
Wed, 23 Feb 2000 08:32:24 -0500 (EST)
On Tue, 22 Feb 2000, Harondel J. Sibble wrote:
> I won't argue that fact, but I stand by my clarified statement, for non-
> enterprise uses in the real world, a switch will out perform a hub 995 of the
> time
I'd say the other way around; the `enterprise' situation is likely
to have a nice Cisco Catalyst or something else that's capable of
dealing with a large (or even full) offerred load, and ATM or
gigabit Ethernet interconnects, etc.
On the other hand, the typical home user is likely to buy a cheap
switch that uses store-and-forward rather than cut-through and has
an internal speed of perhaps 200-300 Mbps, or sometimes even less
on a stream of 64 byte packets.
Personally, I bought a NetGear DS309, which I'm very happy with.
This is a nine-port hub with a three-way switch on it. Eight ports
are switched between 10 and 100 Mbps segments, and the nineth port
is a separate port on the switch, which is nice for a server or an
uplink or something like that. (Or partitioning off a another
non-switched segment.)
More importantly, it has status/activity lights on both the front
and the back, and has an internal transformer so that it doesn't
use a wall wart. It cost US$145 via the Internet. (Pricewatch.com
can give you the best current price.)
If it's of interest to anyone, I almost always use a hub rather
than a switch on my home networks. I find it essential because I
often need to have a third machine sniffing the exchanges between
a pair of machines to debug a network protocol or whatever. I'd
prefer a switch with RMON, of course, but I can think of better
things to spend $1500 or more on....
cjs
-- Curt Sampson <cjs@cynic.net> 917 532 4208 De gustibus, aut bene aut nihil. The most widely ported operating system in the world: http://www.netbsd.org-- This message came to you via the Vancouver Linux Users Group mailing list. For unsubscription instructions do not email the list, but rather send mail to <vanlug-request@gweep.bc.ca>.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Wed 23 Feb 2000 - 13:34:00